Russell Wallace via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Apr 20 01:29:03 PDT 2016
Okay, that makes sense, thanks. I'll go with cl::opt, then.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
> libOption's key feature is being able implement command line parsing
> compatible with basically any program under the sun. For example, you have
> control over distinguishing between `-foo` and `--foo` if you need that.
> It is used in clang for command line parsing compatible cl.exe and gcc.
> In LLD it is used for command line option parsing compatible with
> link.exe, gnu ld, and ld64.
> If you're writing a program from scratch, this is probably too heavyweight
> and not the right choice (e.g. it involves running a TableGen step as part
> of your build).
> On the other hand, cl::opt has its oddities. But overall cl::opt is a
> reasonable basic option parsing library I would say. If you just need some
> basic option parsing, already have LLVM as a dependency, and don't want to
> roll your own option parsing, it is probably a decent choice.
> Overall I would not consider LLVM to provide a general purpose "option
> parsing" solution. But cl::opt is the closest thing we have.
> -- Sean Silva
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Russell Wallace via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> I'm given to understand that the recommendation these days is to use
>> libOption instead of cl::opt, on the grounds that it has a number of
>> advantages including more control of which options are made available.
>> Is there any information available on how to use libOption, any
>> documentation or example programs? Do any existing programs use it except
>> the clang driver programs? Those customise their commandline handling
>> heavily enough that it's hard to use them as examples.
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev